Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

fda.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 395 posts

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#341

Post by bitshiftfaced »

babyshake wrote: post #122
NateEag wrote: post #76

This reminded me to look up Vasalgel again (a single-application, non-hormonal, long-lasting, reversible male contraceptive that is unfortunately not yet commercially available), and I see that it seems to have taken a meaningful step forward: https://www.parsemus.org/humanhealth/male-contraceptive-rese... Apparently a company's moving forward with an attempt to productize it: https://www.planaformen.com/ With an opt…

One thing that has occurred to me about these types of medications is men are seemingly more willing to lie than women about being on contraception. IMO that's just a reason to criminalize that type of deceptive behavior and not prevent people from having access to the drug.

I don't believe that would be politically tenable. The state / society wants fathers (or at least someone) to pay child support. This kind of law would have a chilling effect on mothers who claim or simply allow someone to take the child's role as a father, even if they're not sure.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#342

Post by Levitz »

odyssey7 wrote: post #38
candiddevmike wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are non hormonal options out there like IUDs (and condoms) that may be a better option though. Speaking as a parent, I would rather have my kids come talk to me /my wife about this stuff and work with us and a doctor to figure out what's best for them long term. I recognize not every kid has that kind of relationship with their parents and would benefit from purchasing it directly.

As much as this is coming from a good place with good intentions, some things are human rights[1] that parents shouldn’t be able to withhold. [1] https://theweek.com/articles/470330/birth-control-human-righ...

Your article talks about an annual report, then links another article written 3 years before the one you link, said article doesn't link to the report.

So I search for the report itself: https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/AR%202012%...

And the claim is nowhere near the one you are making. What the UNFPA (who can't even declare anything a human right, by the way) is saying is:

>Family planning is anchored in respect for human rights, women’s empowerment, and social justice and quality.

And

>In October, UNFPA published its annual The State of World Population report, which made the case that family planning is a basic human right that unlocks unprecedented rewards for women in terms of health, economic power and gender equality.

Putting medical barriers to access the pill is by no means whatsoever a violation of human rights.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#343

Post by giantg2 »

travisjungroth wrote: post #320
giantg2 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are not restrictions under the Rx process. One can easily access hormonal Rx birthconrtol online - virtual appointment and mailorder pharmacy with auto renew. If people are unhappy with their service, there are other providers able to provide a convenient experience. You can't get a year of pills at one time. These pills expire 1 year from the manufacture date.

You're talking about a theoretical "one" that can easily get birth control. In practice, this does act as a significant barrier for a large portion of the population. It's easy to forget this in an Amazon/Doordash/Instacart world, but online ordering doesn't work for everyone. For example, 4.5% of US households are unbanked.

That seems like a poor argument given that demographic is most likely to qualify for free or reduced cost healthcare either through Medicaid or ACA.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#344

Post by mcpackieh »

mathisfun123 wrote: post #336
mcpackieh wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In liberal democracies, people have a right to get to have their say (on a soap box and at the ballot box) in matters that don't rationally concern them.

have a say but not dictate. so my point isn't that the response says things but that it advocates for policy/governance.

In a liberal democracy, a common citizen 'dictating' simply means saying something with a jackass commanding tone. Such advocacy for policy/governance is a protected right in liberal democracies.

It is my right to say: "I command you to dye yourself blue and dance for my amusement." And it's your right to tell me to fuck off.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#345

Post by ssnistfajen »

jjkeddo199 wrote: post #340
ssnistfajen wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For career-oriented people, yes. Those countries operate on the same market economy principles as every other industrialized nation. Extensive welfare and benefits coverage not reversing the birthrate decline only further reinforces my argument that the root cause lies deep within how our society functions.

Are you saying that a free market economy is incompatible with high birth rates? How did even less generous free market nations have high birth rates in the past? Don't you think being forced to choose between having a free market and having high birth rates an even more extreme idea than the one in my OP?

>Are you saying that a free market economy is incompatible with high birth rates?

Industrialized free market economies are incompatible with high birth rates.

>How did even less generous free market nations have high birth rates in the past?

Because those nations were not yet fully industrialized nor did they respect basic human rights for every individual. Even in the U.S. it was not possible to have a no-fault divorce until the 1970s.

>Don't you think being forced to choose between having a free market and having high birth rates an even more extreme idea than the one in my OP?

Do you also think stock buybacks is an "extreme idea"? It's the nature of every business in a free market economy. This is why they punish employees who take leave instead of continuing to work.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#346

Post by idopmstuff »

giantg2 wrote: post #309
idopmstuff wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it should be explained, but the point is that there's no value in only enabling a scarce resource (doctors) to explain something that doesn't require any medical training (take this once a day at the same time). The pharmacist can explain it. You can put it in huge text on the packaging. You can text or email people. You could literally make someone DocuSign a single page PDF that just says "THIS ONLY WORKS COR…

"All of these options get the exact same message across without being inconvenient and causing people to miss taking their birth control because they couldn't get a doctor's appointment, etc. There are costs to making people go into a medical office that you can't ignore here." I mean, the alternative already exists - online appointments. You can even get auto renewing prescriptions through the mail.

What is the need for any kind of appointment with a doctor? There is literally no medical expertise required for what we're talking about here. There is the need to relay an instruction that almost anyone can understand. Why is it a good idea to force patients to make any kind of appointment and to take up the time of very highly trained medical professionals, in order to say "TAKE THIS AT THE SAME TIME EVERY DAY"?

You could train a dog to pass that message across using some of those buttons that say words when pressed. That would actually probably be much more effective than having it come from a doctor, because the dog thing would be much more memorable.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#347

Post by runako »

rvcdbn wrote: post #327
runako wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anything in current US politics around pregnancy that might make you consider that the legal regime in this area might be changing?

sure but the previous comment made it sound like it was already illegal which would have been really surprising to me. I’m no fan of recent regressions in abortion law but the arguments made by pro-lifers that I’ve heard would not apply to birth control (ie that abortion is essentially killing a human). so I would actually expect them to favor birth control as a way to prevent abortion. that’s assuming their position…

The largest Christian denomination has a long-standing prohibition on all forms of contraception. (This is in addition to its prohibition on abortion.)

IIRC there are currently laws on the books in many states that ban contraception (even condoms in some states). Those laws are (potentially temporarily) invalidated due to Supreme Court opinions. The current Court has expressed the desire and willingness to overturn longstanding precedent. QED it's entirely possible we will see oral contraception and even condoms become illegal in some states.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#348

Post by Levitz »

ericmay wrote: post #95
sugarpile wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you think the two are equivalent? Hormone medications can have a profound impact on a person across the spectrum from mental to physical health. Secondly, taking BC wrong may lead to a false sense of security and subsequent unwanted pregnancies. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a, smallish, correlated increase in STDs, as well. Neither of those are a thing someone buying tylenol has to worry about. Disinge…

Let's get big government nanny state out of the way here. People can make their own decisions. It's not like you can't consult with a physician when taking contraceptives over the counter anyway. Everything you said here you can apply to other behaviors, ranging from alcohol/marijuana consumption, to eating fast food, to skydiving. OTC here is a result of politics specifically because access is being restricted or in…

>This is really unsubstantiated and it would be nice if you didn't say things like this in the context of this conversation here unless you're going to provide a legitimate source.

Condoms and the pill are the most used contraceptive methods in the US, by far. Given that condoms prevent STDs, it would actually be a surprise if, everything else equal, those who use the pill didn't have slightly more STDs.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#349

Post by Levitz »

Spivak wrote: post #242
sugarpile wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you think the two are equivalent? Hormone medications can have a profound impact on a person across the spectrum from mental to physical health. Secondly, taking BC wrong may lead to a false sense of security and subsequent unwanted pregnancies. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a, smallish, correlated increase in STDs, as well. Neither of those are a thing someone buying tylenol has to worry about. Disinge…

And 90% of women have taken hormone contraceptives at some point in their lives and that's not even counting the people who take hormone treatments for PCOS or menopause. These medications are safe for everyone. There is noting a doctor does to evaluate whether you're healthy enough to take them. They literally just write the script and explain how to take it. Medications where the doctor visit is a formality should…

>The opposition is just politically-religiously motivated concern trolling.

Then why do European countries require a prescription too?

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#350

Post by fzeroracer »

CivBase wrote: post #337
fzeroracer wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I'm not aware of any concerted effort by Republicans to ban or restrict pre-pregnancy contraceptives in my lifetime. Really? Because Texas has been marching in that direction for some time now. There was a recent ruling that when it comes to contraceptives that agencies cannot protect minor confidentiality from their parents. Multiple republican think tanks push the idea that contraceptives kill babies and shou…

> There was a recent ruling that when it comes to contraceptives that agencies cannot protect minor confidentiality from their parents. That issue is about whether parents should have access to private information about their children, not restrictions to contraceptives. I already acknowledged there are groups who are opposed to contraception. The Catholic Medical Association and Students for Life of America are exam…

Students for Life is a republican non-profit organization, same for the Catholic Medical Association. They are pushing concentrated efforts to restrict access to pre-pregnancy contraceptives. You're trying to pull a no true scotsman here and it isn't working.

> That issue is about whether parents should have access to private information about their children, not restrictions to contraceptives.

No, that is exactly the issue. The issue is you have religious parents that are anti-contraceptives. The goal of this is to prevent people from using contraceptives under the watch of their parents. The ruling is specifically around contraceptives, so you trying to say it's not about contraceptives is incredibly weird.

Post reply on HN